BREAKING: The End Of Citizens United?

In a surprising and much welcomed display of bi-partisanship, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the American Tradition Partnership vs. Bullock, now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. The filing is in support of the Montana Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the state’s ban on independent expenditures by corporations.

The US Supreme Court issued a stay of decision on the case in February and the McCain/Whitehouse brief calls upon the Court to review the finding that the Citizen’s United ruling allowing independent expenditures has no corrupting influence in political campaigns.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

“Evidence from the 2010 and 2012 electoral cycles has demonstrated that so-called independent expenditures create a strong potential for corruption and the perception thereof…The news confirms, daily, that existing campaign finance rules purporting to provide for ‘independence’ and ‘disclosure’ in fact provide neither.”

“This unregulated and unaccountable spending invites corruption into our political process and undermines our democracy. We urge the Supreme Court to make clear that legislatures can take appropriate actions against corrupting influences in campaigns.”

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

 

What does or did citizen united do?

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. The nonprofit corporation Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA").[2] In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that portions of BCRA §203 violated the First Amendment.

The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a July 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The lower court held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][3] The Supreme Court reversed, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from spending on "electioneering communications".[2]

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Who We Are

Citizens United is an organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizens' control. Through a combination of education, advocacy, and grass roots organization, Citizens United seeks to reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security. Citizens United's goal is to restore the founding fathers' vision of a free nation, guided by the honesty, common sense, and good will of its citizens.

Citizens United

Since at least Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the Supreme Court noted in dicta in a headnote that corporations as persons for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.